Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States is honored today to have Pastor James Thomas, the reverend of Jefferson Street Missionary Baptist Church, to deliver the opening prayer.

Pastor Thomas has been a force for good in the Nashville community since 1964 when he hitchhiked from Texas with $4 in his pocket to attend American Baptist Theological Seminary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for yielding me this time. We have a number of speakers on this side, and I would like to yield to them. I am particularly appreciative of the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues wish they could be here today, particularly our friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). I yield such time as he may consume to our friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who is here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks about the legacy of a truly great man.

It is not everyone who not only makes the front page of the hometown newspaper, the only front page I have ever seen entirely in black, but who also makes the front page of Time Magazine, People Magazine and, yes, no less than Rolling Stone itself.

There were some comments in here from some truly remarkable artists who have this to say about the passing of Johnny Cash.

Bob Dylan said, ``Johnny was and is the North Star. You could guide your ship by him, and he is the greatest of the greats, then and now.''

Merle Haggard said, ``He was like Abraham or Moses, one of the great men who will ever grace the Earth. There will never be another man in black.''

Kris Kristofferson pointed out he thought, ``The power of his performance came from the tension between

this man who was deeply spiritual and also a real wild man.''

The fact of Johnny Cash's passing has been noted by people around the world with great sadness, but I thought one of the best obituaries in his honor was written by a noted music author, Peter Guralnick; and it appeared in The New York Times. He said as follows: ``Only those who were there at the beginning can remember how different he really was. The records, when they first started coming out on the Sun label in 1955, in the wake of Elvis Presley's success, sounded `so unusual,' said the Sun session guitarist Roland Janes, `that I never would have dreamed he could have even gotten a record played on the radio. But he set country music on its ear.'

``It was the voice that compelled attention from the start. It was a voice that the founder of Sun Records, Sam Phillips, compared to the blues singer Howlin' Wolf's in its uniqueness, the unimpeachable integrity and originality of its sound. But it was the conviction behind the voice that really allowed Johnny Cash to create a body of work as ambitious in its scope as it was homespun in its sound.

``He carried that conviction with him from the time he first entered the tiny Sun studio in Memphis in the fall of 1954. He was just out of the Army, selling home appliances door-to-door and playing with a trio of musicians barely conversant with the instruments that they were playing: a guitarist who played one note at a time because he did not know any other way to do it, a base player who had just switched over from the guitar and had not yet learned how to tune his instrument, and a steel guitar player who would drop out of the picture altogether before they even made a record. They worked and worked until, after nearly 6 months, they finally came up with something that reflected the honesty, originality, and, above all, the spontaneity and emotional truth that both Sam Phillips and Johnny Cash particularly prized. This low-tech approach was the perfect vehicle certainly for the plain- spoken quality of Johnny Cash's message, but the method of delivery does not come close to explaining the majesty or the ambition of his art.

``To understand that, one has to factor in the power of imagination. John Cash, he was named `Johnny' by Sam Phillips, grew up in the Federal `colony' of Dyess, Arkansas, a social experiment with a socialist setup really, as Johnny Cash himself described it, that was done by President Franklin Roosevelt for farmers who had lost out during the Depression. One of the most vivid memories of Dyess was the day Eleanor Roosevelt came to town to decorate the library, a momentous occasion not simply for the glimpse it afforded of Mrs. Roosevelt but for the opportunity it subsequently afforded Johnny Cash to indulge in what would become a lifelong passion for reading. He read James Fenimore Cooper and Sir Walter Scott in particular at that time and everything he could find on the American Indian, not so much to escape as to enjoy the sense of discovery. He carried this exploratory spirit with him into the world, a world in which he achieved a degree of celebrity and fame far beyond anything he might ever have imagined and long past the point that most people would gladly have settled for the simple definition of success.

``He used his success, in fact, to provide a voice for the downtrodden, the lost souls and lost causes that might otherwise have found no place in the American dream. He used his knowledge and passion for every sort of music, for the blues of Robert Johnson, the gospel music of his fellow Arkansan, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, the Texas folk songs collected by J. Frank Dobie, to set out in new and inventive directions of his own. When he got a network television show in the late 1960s, he not only presented such unlikely countercultural figures such as Bob Dylan and Pete Seeger to a predominantly country audience, he also regularly incorporated a vivid lesson in musical and social history in a filmed sequence called `Ride This Train.'

``Johnny Cash's imagination took him along widely divergent paths. There was, as he often remarked, no safe harbor for the creative soul. He was tormented by demons that he could not always control, but he never sought excuses. He simply sought the truth.

``This was what continued to give Johnny Cash's music relevance over the years. Through imagination he possessed a gift for empathetic transference; unlike many artists, he was able to take on other voices and make them his own. His music celebrated the power of the individual, but his emphasis on directness and simplicity made a complex, and sometimes contradictory, message accessible to all. His, as Sam Phillips once said, was the truest voice because it was so irremediably his own, but it was a universal voice, too, for the very way in which it incorporated a constant sense of striving and struggle, an irreducible awareness, and embrace, of the human stain.''

Mr. Speaker, Johnny Cash was like no other. As I mentioned earlier, his loss was mourned around this globe. From young people who like ``Nine Inch Nails'' and the song ``Hurt'' and who thrilled to the video, perhaps one of the best ever made, to the oldest of country music fans who remember tuning in to the Grand Ole Opry in their youth. So we appreciate this moment, and I appreciate the chance to join with my Tennessee colleagues and my colleagues from Arkansas and people around this great country who are in this Congress and who have come up to me in the last couple of weeks to honor the memory of the great Johnny Cash.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask for my colleagues' support of a resolution that I have introduced to honor the memory of one of America's greatest musical heroes, Johnny Cash. The music of Johnny Cash has literally touched the lives of millions of people in America and around the world, and that has spanned several generations.

In my hometown of Nashville, Music City, U.S.A., he is revered as a legend among legends. With a career spanning some 5 decades and with 70 recording albums and with 1,500 recorded songs, Johnny Cash was clearly a defining force in American music.

We will miss him for much more than the long list of songs that he added to the American classics. We will miss him as a great human being, a champion of the poor, the hopeless, the downtrodden, and the imprisoned. Because he was raised in poverty himself, the Man in Black spoke to everyone and for everyone.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 282 to honor the memory of Johnny Cash.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment that I am offering tonight along with the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is to decrease funding for very ill-considered and heavy-handed IRS enforcement effort that tries to precertify working poor families for the earned income tax credit or the EITC.

The amendment we are proposing will reduce funding by $75 million for the IRS's precertification proposal and it would in turn increase funding by $75 million for investigation and audit of large and mid- size corporations. The amendment would continue to allow $25 million for implementation of the precertification program.

I certainly understand the Treasury's concerns about high error rates associated with the EITC. And as a proponent of good government, I am eager to reduce any waste, fraud or abuse in government. But the Treasury's proposal will create, probably, an even more burdensome bureaucracy than they realize, and it is a clumsy and heavy-handed attack on the poor.

Even the IRS realizes this because in a recent announcement they decided to delay and decrease their precertification program. EITC compliance accounts for about 3 percent of the estimated total taxes that go uncollected, about 3 percent. But in contrast, according to the General Accounting Office, individuals who under report business income on their taxes are defrauding the government by about $40 billion a year or about 12 percent of uncollected taxes, more than the cost of the entire EITC program. Yet, guess what? There is no major effort to target these taxpayers even though it is a much larger amount.

I suggest we follow the Willie Sutton rule, the famous bank robber, who when asked why he robbed banks, he said, ``That's where the money is.''

Instead, the IRS has requested a 68.5 percent increase in EITC enforcement while barely increasing their other enforcement efforts. In my mind, this represents a gross misallocation of resources, especially in view of declining overall tax enforcement by the IRS.

I am willing to bet that the administrative costs of precertification will far outstrip any potential savings, especially if the IRS goes forward with the plans to eventually expand the precertification process to as many as two million taxpayers. That is why our amendment would direct $75 million toward much more sensible and cost-effective compliance efforts, where the money is, toward auditing and investigating mid-size and large corporations. Because according to the IRS, 7,000 corporations that should be audited every year are not. This translates into a direct loss to the Treasury of $6.5 billion a year in tax revenues.

Moreover, according to a recent report by former IRS Commissioner Rossotti, the IRS lacks the resources to carry out nearly a third of the corporate audits it should be accomplishing each year.

So why is the administration focusing on the few dollars of poor working families under the EITC and not on the big dollars of these companies? Why is the U.S. Government trying to make this vital tax credit so hard to claim? I am afraid the real IRS motive may not be just a desire to curb waste, fraud and abuse. It may be gross insensitivity to the needs of working poor families, simple hard- heartedness and lack of compassion for these hard-pressed American families.

In the national metropolitan area which makes up the heart of my congressional district, approximately 14 percent of my constituents rely on the EITC every year, receiving a credit of about $1,500. In total, this credit puts about $87 million a year into these families and into the national economy. Nationally, the EITC is directly responsible for lifting some four million people every year above the poverty line, including two million children. Precertification programs, as proposed by the IRS, will discourage many of these families from even applying for the EITC.

Under the precertification proposal, the IRS now says it will now want to prove that children claimed under the credit have been living with the claiming taxpayer for the required six months. The practical obstacles posed by this requirement are mind boggling. Although the IRS would allow a landlord or property manager to submit an affidavit, what landlords would testify on penalty of perjury to the intimate living arrangements of their tenants? Neighbors and relatives who are, in fact, in the best position to know these arrangements, are forbidden under the IRS approach from providing supporting documentation.

I also object to the discriminatory treatment of lower income tax payers that would result from precertification. For those subject to the process of precertification, this effectively means a 100 percent chance of

audit in advance of even filing your tax return. No other taxpayers in America face a comparable burden. Why is the IRS not also demanding precertification for taxpayers claiming credits for dependent care expenses, educational expenses, or charitable contributions? There is significant evidence that these credits are a widespread source of exaggeration and noncompliance and abuse, yet no one is requiring these other taxpayers to file receipts in advance for day care expenses or donations of such things as used automobiles or clothing.

I fear that rather than reducing errors, the IRS proposal would, in fact, intimidate people into not using the EITC at all, and that would be a severe injustice to these people.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Oklahoma has been quite unfair in his characterization, first in the nature of the amendment. We drafted this with the advice of the Parliamentarian as the only way to affect this important area in the bill without being subject to a point of order. I think the gentleman really thinks a more explicit amendment would have been subject to a point of order, which is exactly what the gentleman from Oklahoma would have preferred.

Second point, picking on poor people. If my colleague is going to do it, at least be fair about it. Remember, under this bill we would still allow $25 million to be spent to implement the IRS precertification. Remember, again, that even the IRS has admitted that their prior efforts have gone too far because they, IRS, on their own initiative has delayed and canceled their program because even they have realized they were insensitive to the needs of these families.

Another mischaracterization, the program was put into place, as I recall, years ago before my time by a Republican President, and I think it was Richard Nixon, because he and many Americans realized the detrimental effect of a high marginal rate of taxation. As a person works and moves out of poverty, they are subject to an extraordinarily high and punitive tax

rate. The EITC is designed to bring that back to a decent, bearable level for these hardworking families.

So it is basically a Republican program we are talking about here. No one wants it to be abused. But I would suggest to the gentleman that there are other, fairer ways to police this program, and guess what, this and prior Congresses have already thought up several of them because, guess what, the study that the gentleman cited about waste or abuse in the program is from a 1999 study, and this Congress has already implemented several reforms to improve administration of this program. No study has been conducted since 1999. So let us at least find out the true facts before we jump to conclusions, especially when at the same time we are jumping on the backs of the poor.

This is an important opportunity to balance IRS enforcement, to allow the IRS to go where the money really is. As I mentioned, the average recipient in my district, at least of this money, gets $1,500. There are many other places the IRS could go to really retrieve big dollars for the taxpayer. The IRS has listed them. We are allowing $75 million to go help the IRS in these efforts while we still preserve $25 million for this precertification program.

So if the gentleman were more careful with his facts and more sensitive to the needs of the working poor, he would not simply dismiss this as a public assistance program. This is an example, if my colleague wants to use it, of compassionate conservatism, but unfortunately in this Congress we are seeing very little compassion.

Let us have some compassion for the working poor, and this amendment is an opportunity to show it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note once again that my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, is being unfair. We are not trying to stop enforcement of EITC. We are trying to do it in a fair and balanced way so that the IRS can go after where the big money is as well as where the small money is.

And the gentleman is unfair as well because it is not just a little bit of paperwork. They have to find folks who will certify that their own children have been living with them for 6 months, and they disqualify relatives and neighbors and building managers. So who else can they turn to, people who do not know them? And under penalty of perjury, they want an absentee landlord to sign a piece of paper saying someone's kids have been living with them? Why not a simpler approach? Why not say, in the situation of a divorce or legal separation, why not go to the court and find out who has custody of the children and get a certificate there and make that work? That would be a simple, fair way to do it. But, no, the IRS has not chosen that path.

There are other simpler ways of solving this problem, and that is all that we ask. Even the IRS acknowledges that. That is why they have, on their own initiative, delayed and downsized their proposed program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my good friend and colleague and cosponsor of this key amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, if it is just a little bit of paperwork, if it is not much hassle, if it is easy to comply with precertification, then I would suggest that the gentleman from Oklahoma in the next Congress apply the same rulings and regulations to all of the other taxpayers in this country.

I think the gentleman will find that these paperwork requirements are indeed burdensome, unfair, and are indeed insensitive to the working poor, the folks we should be trying to help in this Congress, as they lift themselves out of poverty, using a Republican-borne program which has helped millions of Americans and their families escape the poverty trap, and it does so by allowing them to avoid the punitive marginal tax rates that the working poor face.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Tonight we are about to have an hour of debate on whether, in fact, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are the compassionate conservatives that they claim to be. Is there any compassion in their bones?

We are not debating whether the U.S. Senate is compassionate, because they have already voted by a bipartisan vote of 94 to 2 to do the right thing. We are not debating whether President Bush and the Republican White House is compassionate because they have already urged House Republicans to do the right thing and do it quickly. But it has been 93 days that House Democrats have been waiting, that the President has been waiting, and that Senate Republicans have been waiting; and still there is no action from the other side of the aisle.

What is the issue? The issue is the child tax credit. If you are going to be a compassionate conservative, if you are going to be compassionate at all, surely you will take care of the children in our society. Surely you will take care of the children whose parents are relatively poor, parents who earn between about 10 and $20,000 a year. That is the issue at stake. That is what the American people have been waiting for for 93 days. The other side could take action. In fact, we could probably pass it tomorrow if they would finally act. But the Republican leader has been quoted as saying, it ain't going to happen. Other Republican leaders have been saying things to indicate what has in fact happened, that the conference on this has not even bothered to meet. They have not even bothered to pretend that they care.

So that is what is at stake in this debate, and that is why we are bringing it to the attention of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the great State of Georgia (Ms. Majette) who has been a real leader on these issues, in fact, on all issues having to do with protecting our Nation's children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for her remarks. I appreciate her contribution to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his comments. The gentleman is the youngest Member of Congress, an honor I held about 20 years ago this day. We appreciate his eloquence on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would hope that the listeners could see through the rather emphatic rhetoric of my good friend from Pennsylvania, because may I remind him that the conference committee has not even bothered to meet on this issue. The Senate is controlled by Republicans, the House is controlled by Republicans, and they have not found time in the last 93 days to meet on this issue.

Let me read the quote from the White House Press Secretary: ``The President wants to sign the Senate legislation,'' not the House legislation, the Senate legislation, ``and hopes that Congress will get it to him quickly.'' This was on June 9 of this year. ``The President believes that what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it.''

So cut through all the rhetoric, cut through all the b.s. I have not seen a Committee on Ways and Means majority member carrying this much heavy water since they tried to defend the police action taken by a member of that committee a month or so ago, only to have the chairman of the committee come to this floor to apologize for his action.

Do the right thing. Do what the White House has asked you to do. Do what the Senate has passed 94 to 2.

Are Republicans compassionate? Can they govern this country? Can they be decent to our own children? That is the issue we are debating tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), a genuine leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been not only a leader on this issue, but on so many issues in this House of Representatives. Where the gentleman gets his energy, I do not know, but I am proud of him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis), an eloquent speaker, a colleague and friend of mine who, in fact, represents the congressional district I used to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining in addition to myself. How much time remains on my side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

As I began the debate, are House Republicans compassionate? Unwittingly they have proven for the 93rd day they are not, because they will not even agree with their President or with the Republican majority in the Senate to

govern, to do the right thing for our Nation's children.

I would urge this House to vote yes on the motion to instruct. It is a vote on compassion. It is a vote on whether we care, and this is the chance to prove it.

For the second time tonight, the Republican majority in the House has proved they do not have any compassion. First we debated the earned income tax credit, now this one. Vote yes on this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, the Child Tax Credit bill. The form of the motion is as follows:

Madam Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows:

Number one, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Number two, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (again not included in the House amendment) that provides families of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones around the world, a child tax credit based on the earnings of the individuals who are serving in the combat zone.

Number three, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits which are not offset by other provisions.

Number four, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia shuttle disaster.

Number five, and finally, the House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with Senate conferees, and the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this instruction, not later than the second legislative day after adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, this was a very important week in the House of Representatives. Hopefully we learned a lesson of bipartisan cooperation last night with the historic victory on the drug reimportation bill; and hopefully we also learned the dangers of arrogance, anger, and insensitivity when a House chairman had to apologize to this House.

I hope that we apply these lessons to the child care tax credit today. We need to help the 12 million poor children waiting for that assistance. The Senate has voted 94-2 to help these children. The White House is for it. Only a small group in the House Republican leadership is opposing it. People of goodwill on both sides of the aisle want this relief to be granted today. Where is compassionate conservative? As one of the House Republican leaders said, ``It ain't going to happen.''

Mr. Speaker, this House needs to get relief to these 12 million poor children.

Mr. Speaker, because of a very small group of Republican leaders, they are preventing this House from helping 12 million poor children around America. I would like to give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the rank-and-file Republicans, the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that their heart is in this fight. I believe they are being compelled by their leaders to do the wrong thing. It is still not too late to do the right thing.

The checks are being mailed out today to the rich families in America, and Members know it was a mistake made also 2 months ago to prevent the other families in America from also getting help. That is not just my opinion. Our President, George Bush, called once again yesterday to help these children. President Bush is trying to be a compassionate conservative, but the other side of the aisle is not letting him do that. He has been calling for this 2 months now. Let us listen to our President. It is not just our President; the other body, by a vote of 94-2 has voted to do the right thing.

But too often we see in the House younger Members, Republicans, compelled in some cases to do the wrong thing. It happened last week when Member after Member came to this House to say that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means had done the right thing; when, thankfully, that same chairman came to the House floor this week to admit that he had done the wrong thing.

Do not support Republican leaders when they are asking you to do the wrong thing. Be the compassionate conservatives you claim to be. Help these 12 million poor children. It is not quite too late; but 2 months have passed, 2 months of waiting, 2 months of hurt for these families. These people work hard every day. They pay their fair share of taxes. Let us give them their fair share of tax help. Do the right thing today and vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincerest congratulations to the American Political Science Association on the 50th anniversary of its Congressional Fellowship Program. I am also personally deeply

grateful to the APSA for the privilege of working with one of the program's most talented fellows this year, Dr. Frances Lee of Case Western Reserve University.

Frances has been a true delight and an invaluable asset to my office. Both my staff and I feel honored to have had a chance to benefit from her many-faceted intelligence, her unstinting hard work, and her ever- cheerful demeanor. In her short time with us, she has worked on several projects of both local and national impact that are of special importance to my constituents back in the Fifth District.

For example, Frances took principal responsibility in preparing a comment letter to the Internal Revenue Service, protesting its ``pre- certification'' proposal for recipients of the Earned Income Tax Credit. This credit provides approximately $89 million in refunds to the hard-working families of my district each year, and its benefit to my constituents cannot be overstated. Frances worked with both local and national community groups and advocates to help raise awareness of the IRS proposal, which would have imposed an onerous bureaucratic burden on EITC beneficiaries by requiring them to ``register'' for this credit in advance. Frances meticulously researched the details of the IRS plan and crafted a well-written and persuasive letter urging the IRS to reconsider the impact of its proposal. Her efforts have drawn not only attention from the media but the interest of community groups in Nashville, who are now working with our office to make free tax assistance more readily available in our community. I cannot thank her enough for what her work will do to help ensure that my constituents continue to receive the tax credits they have earned through their hard work.

In addition to this effort, Frances provided our office with valuable assistance and advice on issues as varied as diversity in media ownership, prescription drugs and Medicare and social security. She also worked on projects critical to local economic development and charity.

Both my staff and I will miss Frances deeply, and on behalf of my staff, I wish her the very best in all of her future endeavors. And to the APSA for granting us the opportunity to work with Frances, I again offer my sincerest thanks.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute today to CommanderIM Steven J. Fuqua, who is retiring this summer from the United States Navy after 20 distinguished

years of service. Commander Fuqua is a native of my district, from Nashville, Tennessee.

During his career, Commander Fuqua held some of the most demanding jobs in the United States Navy and fulfilled these duties superbly. He has served as the chief engineer on a nuclear submarine, an extraordinarily challenging job that requires unstinting, 24-hour attention. He has also served as the Executive Officer on many missions, including one around-the-world deployment aboard the USS Batfish in 1997.

In honor of his distinguished service, Commander Fuqua has been awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with three gold stars, and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with gold star. Long-time friend and fellow naval officer Scott Potter said of Commander Fuqua, ``If you had to name a prototype naval officer, Steve would be it.''

Commander Fuqua holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Tennessee Technological University and a Masters in Mechanical Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. After receiving his commission from Officer Candidate School in 1984, he entered the elite Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and completed the course of instruction at the Naval Nuclear Power School in Orlando, Florida and Nuclear Prototype Training at the Prototype in Idaho Falls, Idaho. He also completed the Submarine Officer Advanced Course at the Naval Submarine Base in New London, Connecticut.

Commander Fuqua's initial sea tour assignment was aboard the USS Billfish (SSN 676) from 1986 to 1989, where he served as Main Propulsion Assistant and Combat Systems Officer. In 1992, Commander Fuqua reported aboard the USS Key West (SSN 772) as Engineer Officer. During this tour, the ship completed a Mediterranean deployment, a Southern deployment and a Selected Restricted Availability (SRA). From 1995 to 1997, he was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) working for C4I Integration Support Activity (CISA), a defense support activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command & Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence.

In 1997, following completion of the Prospective Executive Officer course in New London, Connecticut, he reported for duty as Executive Officer of the USS Batfish (SSN 681). Following completion of a six- month around-the-world deployment, the USS Batfish changed homeports from New London, Connecticut to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Commander Fuqua detached from the USS Batfish in 1999 following the ship's inactivation and reported for duty to the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations (N77), where he served as Submarine Communications Requirements Officer from 1999 until 2002. In May 2003, Commander Fuqua reported to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) where he is assigned to the Undersea Weapons Program Office of the International Programs Division.

He now lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife Kathi, their three sons, Steven, 14, Matthew, 12, and Tyler, 9, and their daughter, Megan, who is 4.

On behalf of the citizens of the Fifth Congressional District of Tennessee, I salute Commander Fuqua for his outstanding career and for his service to our Nation. We are proud to claim him as a native son. I wish him well in his retirement and in all his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today is the day that our seniors have been waiting for for many, many years, the day that we will pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, the real debate took place last night upstairs in an attic room in this building in the dark of night, literally starting after midnight, from 1 to 4 a.m., burglar hours, not lawmaker hours. In that debate, they foreclosed real debate on this floor today. They allowed only two bills to be considered, the Republican plan which is deeply flawed, which will end Medicare as we know it, and another plan which is too large to fit within the budget window. I supported the Dooley alternative, a much more sensible piece of legislation. Our seniors deserve better, much better than will be done for them on this House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this should be a great day for this country. We should be on the verge of passing a real Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors. But, unfortunately, we are not. The Republican majority is rushing through a sham bill in this House in barely 24 hours. They would not let anybody see a copy of this bill until 11:50 p.m. last night. The Committee on Rules' deliberations began at 12:50 a.m. last night and lasted, as has been mentioned, until 4 a.m.

What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? And why would they not allow amendments like the Dooley amendment to be offered on this floor? It is my understanding in the other body that Senators Hagel, Ensign, and Clinton will be offering the Dooley approach as a substitute to that legislation. The other body has deliberated on this matter for some 2 weeks in the full light of day so that all senior citizens around this country, all families around this country, could pay attention to the details of this legislation and judge for themselves whether it is good medicine for the American people or not.

But not only is the Republican majority hiding the real substance of this bill, they have failed to learn the lessons of past efforts of this House to reform the health care system. Number one, health care legislation that works must not be partisan. This bill is almost an entirely Republican-only bill. That dooms it to failure from the start. Second, real health care reform must not be overly complex. This is one of the most complex bills that seniors could ever imagine facing. The red tape is incredible. And, third, this bill should not be overly burdensome to seniors, but it is. Watch out when your seniors back home realize they have to pay $35 a month for a very questionable benefit.

There is a donut hole in coverage, and that is almost too complex to explain in the 2 minutes I am allowed here, but this bill is so inferior to the Dooley bill, which solves these problems in a simple, clear and fair fashion. Under the Dooley bill, there is a zero monthly premium.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would take a few questions I would certainly appreciate it, because I would like to have a dialogue with him on these issues.

My impression is that most Members of this Congress, most folks back home are probably finishing up their supper, tired after the long day at work; if they are tuned in to C-SPAN, all of them are wondering where is the straight talk about the U.S. economy, where is straight talk about their job and their future, or how long will their unemployment continue to last. People want real information, real facts. So many of the Federal budget numbers are so large that it is hard for the average citizen to comprehend. It is hard for the average Congressman or woman to understand.

I know the gentleman from South Carolina has played a long and constructive role in budget debates for many years now, helping, for example, in the Clinton years to build a surplus.

If the gentleman would turn to that chart, I think that is a period of real pride in American history. I think the gentleman just passed the chart right there, where we got out of a sea of red ink and actually built up toward a surplus and achieved a surplus in 8 short years, the first time that had been done in some 40 years in American history. So that was a truly significant accomplishment but, unfortunately, it has been largely voided by recent events.

I know that the gentleman is a positive and constructive force in this debate, and we try to seek out positive ways that our country can grow and advance. But it is important for us to first realize the predicament we are in.

Is my understanding correct that the job performance that we are witnessing right now is the worst in half a century?

So since March 2001, our economy has lost 3.1 million jobs.

And that is the worst job creation performance of any President since 50 years ago and Harry Truman?

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine a starker policy contrast than the one that you are exhibiting right there to show that we were drowning in red ink until 1991, and then we climb up to the surface and can breathe again, and now we are drowning one more time in another sea of red ink.

The gentleman mentioned a Democratic stimulus package, and if he could elaborate on that, because it is my understanding that the Bush tax cut plan actually has very little stimulus in the short term for our economy, whereas the plan that the gentleman put forward actually had much more of a stimulant effect to help our economy today get out of the ditch. Could the gentleman elaborate?

Let me make sure I heard this right. In the short run, the Democratic bill would have been twice as stimulative as the Republican bill, $130 billion versus $60 billion, and in the long run we would not have had any of the deficit hangover that the Republican bill has?

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic proposal would have stimulated consumer demand with the rebate program and business investment with the depreciation incentives.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a great point, talking about the 12 million kids who are left out of the tax cut. Right now, as I understand it, this House is considering whether to repair that mistake. The other body in the Senate has voted, I think overwhelmingly, 94-2, to help the 12 million poor children. The question before this House is whether we will take action to correct the mistake, to help the 12 million kids who should have been covered by the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago this House made a terrible mistake in the tax cut bill, partly because that bill was rammed through this House under the so-called marshal law rule, with minimal notice or debate. Some 12 million American children who need the help the most were left out of that bill; 444,000 Tennessee children were left out of that bill.

It is not too late to correct the mistake, and I hope that this House will take prompt action to help those 12 million children, including the 444,000 Tennessee children who need the help the most. The clock is ticking, Mr. Speaker. The world is watching. Let us help these kids.

Mr. Speaker, the sort of checks that Americans are interested in hearing about are not the check clearing system technicality but the checks they receive as a result of their hard work or as a result of tax refunds.

This July most all Americans with children will be receiving a check in their mailbox as a result of the child tax credit that we passed some 2 weeks ago. Except for the parents who are in the military, who are in the National Guard who do not make a whole lot of money serving our country, and except for the low-income parents who work hard every day for minimum wage or a little bit above, they and their children will not be receiving these checks.

Why? Six million parents, 12 million of the most deserving people in our country, will not be receiving checks because of a deliberate, secret, back-room deal cut by Republican leadership.

Now, most of my constituents want bipartisan government. They want Democrats and Republicans to work together for the greater good of this Nation. And now that our government is under the control of a Republican White House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House leadership, people are asking, what decisions are they making?

Well, they are making decisions to leave out 12 million poor children, 12 million deserving folks who need a future in this country; and $400 each would do them a lot of good. It would not only stimulate the economy, it would address the fundamental fairness of that legislation.

Now, many of the folks on the right are saying, well, their parents do not pay taxes. They do pay payroll taxes. They pay property taxes. They pay sales taxes. I dare any of the Members to go to these people and say they do not pay taxes. These are not welfare recipients. These are hard-working people trying to build the American dream, and this House deliberately left out those parents and their 12 million children because we did not have room to fit it into a $350 billion tax bill. All we are asking for is 1 percent of that bill, $3.5 billion to be devoted to the needs of 12 million deserving American kids.